Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add rules/prisma/prisma-next/prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checksgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/prisma/prisma-nextWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/rules/prisma/prisma-next/prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/rules/prisma/prisma-next/prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/rules/prisma/prisma-next/prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01212 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00606 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
100% identical to prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Prefer Assertions Over Defensive Checks
CRITICAL: When data has already been validated, use assertions instead of defensive checks. This eliminates unrealistic test scenarios and makes invalid states unrepresentable.
The Problem
Defensive checks with optional chaining create code paths that are impossible in practice — and force tests that bypass TypeScript to exercise impossible states (coverage padding), break when types are tightened, and add maintenance burden.
// ❌ WRONG: Defensive check after validation
if (!contractTable.columns[columnName]) {
errorUnknownColumn(columnName, tableName);
}
const columnMeta = contractTable.columns[columnName];
const codecId = columnMeta?.codecId; // Optional chaining unnecessary
if (codecId && paramName) paramCodecs[paramName] = codecId;
paramDescriptors.push({
...(codecId ? { type: codecId } : {}),
...(columnMeta?.nullable !== undefined ? { nullable: columnMeta.nullable } : {}),
});
// ✅ CORRECT: Use assertions after validation
if (!contractTable.columns[columnName]) {
errorUnknownColumn(columnName, tableName);
}
const columnMeta = contractTable.columns[columnName]!; // assert existence
const codecId = columnMeta.codecId; // required property, no optional chaining
if (paramName) paramCodecs[paramName] = codecId;
paramDescriptors.push({ type: codecId, nullable: columnMeta.nullable }); // required, no optional check
When to use assertions
- Data has been validated: you've already checked it exists/is valid (e.g. after
if (!contractTable.columns[columnName])usecolumnMeta!; afterif (!model)usemodel!). - Type system guarantees it: TypeScript types require the property.
- Contract validation ensures it: runtime validation (e.g.
validateContract) guarantees the structure, so access required properties directly.
When NOT to use assertions
- Data is truly optional: the property might legitimately be missing.
- External input: data from user input, APIs, or files that hasn't been validated.
- Unvalidated contracts: contract data that hasn't been validated yet.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 5d ago First seen · 126 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 720402292917
prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks is a cursor rule published in the GitHub repository prisma/prisma-next (419 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,212 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to prefer-assertions-over-defensive-checks, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other cursor rules, from other repositories
cli-error-handling
CLI command error handling patterns.
prefer-direct-imports-over-module-mocks
Prefer extracting a testable core over vi.mock / vi.resetModules when unit tests need to reach production logic entangled with config, env, or singletons.
control-plane-descriptors
Control plane descriptor and instance implementation patterns.
family-instance-domain-actions
Family instance domain action implementation patterns.
import-validation
Import validation and package layering rules.
no-target-branches
Never branch on target - use adapters instead.